Tag Archives: social security benefits

A Better Economy Under Trump Seems Unlikely

080519_USEconomy1My Comments: I want our economy to improve. It needs to improve. There are problems that are an existential threat to the continued welfare and wellbeing of my children and grandchildren.

Some of these threats result from the natural evolution of societies across the planet, things like demographics, the improving longevity of our species, and global warming. Others will result from decisions made by our elected leaders that regardless of party, will have an inevitable bias that limits a favorable outcome.

The next four years will reveal a very different bias than what we’ve experienced so far this century. It happens. Those of us who care have to work to make sure that the pendulum does not go too far so it can again swing back the other way, to the benefit of ALL OF US.

Updated: November 27, 2016 | Mark Zandi

Americans voted for change when they made Donald Trump president, and they are going to get it. What this means for the economy is uncertain, but under most scenarios, it ultimately will be diminished.

Financial markets have adjusted surprisingly well to the prospect of a President Trump, at least so far. Stock prices have rallied, the value of the U.S. dollar has strengthened, and interest rates have jumped.

Investors expect the Trump administration to adopt an expansionary fiscal policy. That means deficit-financed tax cuts and increased government spending.

With the economy near full employment, investors anticipate inflation to pick up and the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates more quickly. Outsize gains in financial and health-care stocks imply that investors also believe Trump will scale back Dodd-Frank regulatory reform and Obamacare.

If financial conditions hold firm, the election should have little immediate economic fallout. It also helps that Mr. Trump is inheriting a fundamentally strong economy. Job creation remains robust, and with near-record open job positions and few layoffs, it would take a severe shock to derail things.
But how well financial markets and the economy hold up in the coming year will depend on how quickly the new administration articulates and implements its economic policies. The Trump campaign wasn’t very forthcoming about those policies, likely in part because they weren’t well-developed. The campaign’s economic-policy team was thin, as nearly all establishment Republican economists decided not to participate.

And it remains unclear who will take the key policy positions in the administration, let alone where the teams of economists, financial analysts, and lawyers needed to formulate legislation will come from. They will come, but it could take an uncomfortably long time, particularly for impatient financial markets.

Still, a Republican-controlled House and Senate will smooth the way for more policy to become law, particularly since the Senate filibuster is no longer the legislative fetter it used to be. The president also has significant authority over trade and immigration policy.

So what will economic policy be under President Trump? It is highly likely that two pending trade deals, the TTP with the Pacific Rim and the TTIP with Europe, will be shelved. Labeling some countries, such as China, currency manipulators can’t be ruled out. Presumably this would result in some form of action, such as higher tariffs.

It is a good bet that fewer immigrants will be allowed to come and stay. To satisfy his campaign pledge to require the undocumented to leave the country, President Trump will increase enforcement and may more aggressively implement the e-verify program used by employers to determine whether potential employees have appropriate work visas.

Tax cuts seem likely, albeit with a much smaller price tag than he proposed during the campaign. The corporate tax code will probably also be brought more in line with those of other countries, and there will be a one-time lower tax rate for repatriation of foreign profits now held overseas. More government spending on veteran benefits and the military seem likely, and while more infrastructure spending isn’t as sure, given skepticism among some congressional Republicans, President-elect Trump is openly supportive of it.

It is difficult to see how President Trump will pay for his tax and spending policies. They will likely add significantly to the government’s already uncomfortably large deficits and debt load.

If all this is approximately right, then the economy over Trump’s four-year term will fall meaningfully short of what it would have if there had been no changes in policy. Eventually, it will suffer weaker GDP and job growth, higher inflation and interest rates, and a heavier government debt load.

Behind this poorer performance is a smaller workforce, as some undocumented workers leave and fewer legal immigrants come. Global trade also suffers, given the greater skepticism around our relationships and what is likely to be a somewhat stronger U.S. dollar, particularly against the Chinese yuan and other emerging currencies, like the Mexican peso.

There are important long-term economic benefits from lower marginal tax rates and a reformed corporate tax system, but these changes are too small to have a significant impact on growth, at least not quickly. And then there are the tax and spending policies that result in larger budget deficits. Expansionary fiscal policy makes sense when the economy is in a recession, but it makes little sense when the economy is operating near full employment, as it is today. It only fuels inflation, and higher interest rates.

Mr. Trump’s election also arguably has a deeper, potentially more ominous meaning for the global economy. On the heels of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, it indicates that antiglobalization populist political sentiments are more widely held across the globe. Populism’s next victim may be the eurozone. And if it fractures, so too will the global economic expansion.

Economic policy under President Trump can go in many different directions. But to believe that his anti- globalization, deficit-adding policies will result in a better economy is misguided.

Mark Zandi is chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

Emerging Markets Are In Jeopardy

My Comments: Why, you might ask, is this relevant? Here is my answer:

If you are retired, or making plans to retire, it could greatly influence the amount of money you have to spend and live on during the next decade. And with Trump promising to cede economic leadership to China by killing the TransPacific Trade Partnership, the chances of this happening are real.

Like it or not, globalization is here to stay. Emerging markets (where things are made and sold) across the globe will continue to influence the stock and bond markets that we Americans use to build our wealth in support of retirement.

The source of this blog title comes from Leo Nelissen and was published on November 27, 2016. It follows the recent surge of the US dollar (USD) as a currency of choice across the planet.

USD denominated debt has more than doubled since 2009. Today it represents 17.5% of all such debt in emerging markets, which is up from about 1% just 30 years ago. The real increase has happened in the last 7 years. Here’s a key takeaway from his article:

“A stronger USD means that the debt load soars. This sounds very simple – and in fact, it is very simple. However, the outcome can be extreme.” To read the full article, go HERE.

Women Failing To Max Out Social Security Benefits In Retirement

SSA-image-3My Comments: Social Security is well named. It provides financial security and because it is so pervasive, it carries a social legitimacy that is hard to argue against.

Looking after the elderly has been a social mandate among humans forever. And given that women tend to outlive men, the social needs of women after a certain age carries a special mandate.

This country, in keeping with social norms found across the globe, introduced Social Security in the 1930’s. It is a complicated and diverse project, one that needs to be understood to fully benefit from what it offers. This might help.

Warren Hersch on October 13, 2016

When to begin taking Social Security is an important decision for all soon-to-be retirees, but more so for women than for men.

That’s because women receive (on average) reduced lifetime earnings and income from retirement accounts like 401(K)s and company pension plans. Add to this one other important fact: Women tend to outlive their male spouses, forcing many to rely on their own financial resources in retirement.

That brings us back Social Security. The longer women wait to begin receiving benefits, the higher their income stream will be. On this score, most female retirees are failing to maximize the payout, one that can ensure a large enough nest egg to carry them through the proverbial Golden Years.

These were the conclusions reached by the Nationwide Retirement Institute in a new online survey of 909 U.S. adults over age 50. People in the survey pool were either retired now or plan to be in the next 10 years. The “2016 Social Security Study,” conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of Nationwide, included online interviews with 465 women, among them 301 who are currently retired and 164 who plan to retire in the next 10 years.

The report finds that women, on average, expect Social Security to pay more than half (56 percent) of their expenses in retirement. But among those currently receiving Social Security, only 17 of the survey respondants, or 5 percent, maximized their monthly check by waiting to claim at age 70 or later. In contrast, 8 in 10 retired women now collecting Social Security benefits took those benefits early, locking in a lower lifetime income.

“Too many women retirees have no retirement income outside of Social Security,” Nationwide Retirement Institute Vice President Roberta Eckert said in a press statement. “And even for women that do, the fact that they live longer makes maximizing Social Security benefits extremely important.”

Among the report’s key findings:

  • More than a third of women (35 percent) were kept from doing the things they wanted in retirement. One reason: health care expenses, which prevented nearly one in four (24 percent) women from pursuing retirement objectives.
  • Looking back, nearly 1 in 5 (17 percent) of women who are now drawing Social Security wish they could change their decision and file later. Of those who would not change their filing decision, 39 percent say an unforeseen life event compelled them to take it early, including unplanned health problems (17 percent).
  • More than one in four women currently drawing Social Security (30 percent) say their Social Security payment is less than they expected. Women who have yet to collect Social Security, on average, expect to get $1,527 in monthly benefits.
  • On average, women retirees are currently collecting $1,153, and those who started taking Social Security early report receiving just $1,084.
  • Only 13 percent of women say they received advice on Social Security from a financial advisor. However, nearly 9 in 10 women surveyed who work with an advisor (86 percent) say their Social Security payment was as expected or more than they expected.
  • About three in five women (61 percent) admit that if their financial advisor could not show them how to maximize their benefit, then they would switch to an advisor who could.

WHY IT MATTERS: Social Security

Piggy Bank 1My Comments: A critical percentage of my monthly budget is covered by Social Security. You can argue that it shouldn’t have to be this way and you may be right. But for many millions of us, it IS this way.

Society has come to rely on it, and with the way our republic has evolved, we strongly believe that one role of government is to provide a financial safety net for those of us in the latter stages of our lives. Just as we believe another role of government is to provide a safety net to protect all of us, young and old, against outside threats that would cause us harm. To solve that existential threat, we have the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Marines. In the same manner, to solve the problem of destitution among the elderly, we have a system we call Social Security.

From time to time, as population dynamics change, threats emerge that threaten the viability of Social Security. We are seeing one now which should result in lots of discussion about how to best deal with this threat. Fortunately, we have a democratic republic which allows us to express ourselves nationally and choose from among candidates for public office those who will work in our best interests. At least, that’s the plan.

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | Oct. 22, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) — THE ISSUE: More than 60 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children rely on monthly Social Security benefits.
That’s nearly one in five Americans. The trustees who oversee Social Security say the program has enough money to pay full benefits until 2034.
But at that point, Social Security will collect only enough taxes to pay 79 percent of benefits. Unless Congress acts, millions of people on fixed incomes would get an automatic 21 percent cut in benefits.

Most older Americans rely on Social Security for a majority of their income. Monthly benefits average $1,237.

The candidates have said little to acknowledge the issue, even though it’s a main driver of the government’s long-term budget problems.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has proposed expanding Social Security benefits for widows and family caregivers. That would worsen the program’s finances. She says she would preserve Social Security by requiring “the wealthiest” to pay Social Security taxes on more of their income.
Unusual for a Republican, Donald Trump has promised not to cut Social Security. His campaign has suggested he’d revisit the program after his tax-cut plan boosts economic growth.
___
WHY IT MATTERS

Social Security’s financial problems might seem far off. But the longer Congress waits to act, the harder it will be to save Social Security without dramatic tax increases, big benefit cuts or some combination.

Here’s why:
Once Social Security’s trust funds run dry, the program faces huge shortfalls that get bigger and bigger each year.

In 2034, the program faces a $500 billion shortfall, according to the Social Security Administration. In just five years, the shortfalls add up to more than $3 trillion.

Over the next 75 years, the shortfalls add up to a staggering $139 trillion. But why worry? When that number is adjusted for inflation, it comes to only $40 trillion in 2016 dollars — a little more than twice the national debt.

Why is Social Security facing these problems?

In short, because Americans aren’t having as many babies as they used to. That leaves relatively fewer workers to pay into the system. Immigration has helped Social Security’s finances, but not enough to fix the long-term problems.

In 1960, there were 5.1 workers for each person getting benefits. Today, there are about 2.8 workers for each beneficiary. That ratio will drop to 2.1 workers by 2040.

Despite the program’s problems, Social Security could be preserved for generations to come with modest but politically difficult changes to benefits or taxes, or a combination of both.

Some options could affect people quickly, such as increasing payroll taxes or reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments for those who already get benefits. Other options, such as gradually raising the retirement age, wouldn’t be felt for years but would affect millions of younger workers.

All options carry political risks because they have the potential to affect nearly every U.S. family while angering powerful interest groups.
Liberal advocates and some Democrats oppose all benefit cuts; conservative activists and some Republicans say tax increases are out of the question.

But if Congress acts fast, changes can be made gradually, sparing current beneficiaries while giving younger workers time to adjust.

Each year, Social Security’s trustees implore Congress to act. Here is what they said in this year’s annual report: “Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.”

Should I Delay Taking Social Security?

SSA-image-2My Comments: When do you plan to die? If you can’t answer that question, and instead assume you will live a long and productive life, then chances are you’ll want to delay the start of your monthly social security checks.

There are, however, valid reasons beyond an early trip to the grave to justify taking them sooner rather than later. Among those reasons are you can’t stand your job, your health is eroding as a result of your job, you have successfully accumulated enough savings so that you can easily say ‘take this job and stuff it’, and probably some more.

by Walter Updegrave @CNNMoney October 12, 2016

I understand that if I delay taking Social Security, I’ll receive a larger benefit. But while I’m waiting for that bigger benefit, I’ll have to withdraw more from my retirement savings, which means I’ll miss out on the investment gains those larger withdrawals would have earned. Given those lost investment earnings, am I really better off by waiting for a bigger Social Security check? –M.A.

It’s true that if you retire but wait to take Social Security to qualify for a bigger monthly check down the road, you’ll have to replace the income you would have received from Social Security had you taken it right away. Which means you’ll have to draw more from savings. So initially at least, the value of your nest egg will decline faster than it otherwise would have due to those larger withdrawals.

But while waiting for a bigger Social Security check will indeed result in a loss of investment earnings potential on your savings in the short-run, remember that you’ll be able to reduce the withdrawals from your nest egg when those bigger Social Security payments kick in.

So to gauge the effect on the value of your savings by starting Social Security early rather than later, you have to take a longer view. And you have to consider what you think you can reasonably earn on your retirement assets as well as how long you might live.

Here’s an example: Let’s assume you plan to retire at 62, at which point you qualify for a Social Security benefit of $1,500 a month, or $18,000 a year, an amount that will increase with inflation each year. And let’s further assume that you have $750,000 in savings from which you plan to withdraw an initial 4%, or $30,000, a figure you’ll also increase by the inflation rate each year. If you go through with this plan, you’ll have annual income of $48,000 ($18,000 in Social Security plus $30,000 from your nest egg) that will rise with inflation to help maintain your purchasing power throughout retirement.

Or, you could choose to postpone Social Security in order to qualify for a bigger benefit later on. Generally, your Social Security benefit rises by roughly 7% to 8% for each year you delay between age 62 and 70, after which you receive no increase for waiting. So if you hold off claiming benefits for four years until age 66 — the full retirement age for people born between 1943 and 1954 — you would receive $2,000 a month in today’s dollars, or $24,000 a year, which is a third more than what you would get at 62.

But if you decide to hold off for a higher benefit and still want to match the $48,000 in annual inflation-adjusted income above, you would have to get that entire amount from your savings for the four years until you begin collecting that higher Social Security benefit.

There’s no doubt that, initially at least, your nest egg will be smaller and thus have less potential to generate investment earnings if you opt to wait for the larger Social Security benefit. After all, you’ll be withdrawing $48,000 a year adjusted for inflation instead of $30,000. But after four years, the withdrawals from savings required to hit your annual income target will drop off by roughly half when your higher Social Security benefit kicks in. And at that point and every year afterward, you’ll be withdrawing about 20% a year less than what you would withdraw from savings with the lower Social Security benefit.

So the question is, if you opt to wait for the higher Social Security benefit, how long would it take until the lower withdrawals that start after four years of retirement and continue afterward allow the value of your nest egg to recover and eventually exceed what its value would be had you opted for the lower Social Security benefit that started sooner? Or, to put it another way, how many years does it take for you to come out ahead by waiting for a higher Social Security benefit?

The answer depends in large part on how much you think you can earn on your retirement investments after inflation. Basically, the higher the real, or inflation-adjusted return, you earn, the longer it takes to come out ahead waiting for the higher Social Security benefit.

For example, if inflation cruises along at roughly 2% or so a year and your investments earn 6% — a real, or inflation-adjusted, return of about 4% — it would take until age 83 or so for you to come out ahead by opting for the larger Social Security benefit. In other words, you’ll end up with the same retirement income plus a larger nest egg as long as you make it to age 83. If, on the other hand, inflation runs at 2% but you earn, say, 7% on your retirement investments — a real return of about 5% — it would take another few years, until age 86, for the higher Social Security benefit option to pay off.

Of course, you could delay taking benefits even longer in hopes of a still higher Social Security payment. In the scenario above, for example, waiting until age 70 to collect rather than age 66 would result in a benefit in today’s dollars of $31,680, compared with $24,000 at 66. But holding off from age 66 to age 70 would require more years for you to come out ahead. Assuming an annual real rate of return of 3% to 5%, you would have to live until your mid-to-late 80s to early 90s to be better off waiting for the higher benefit.

Given those ages, does it make sense to hold off for a higher Social Security benefit if doing so might leave you with a smaller nest egg unless you live into your early-to-late 80s? Obviously, that depends a lot on the state of your health and whether you come from a family that has a history of long lifespans. But generally people nearing or entering retirement in decent health have a pretty good shot at living into their mid-80s and beyond.

For example, a 62-year-old man in average health has a 53% chance of living to 85, a 34% chance of making it to age 90 and a 26% shot at making it to age 92, while a 62-year-old woman’s chances are 64%, 46% and 37% respectively. The chances are significantly higher for 62-year-olds in excellent health. You can see your chances of making it to various ages based on your current age, sex and how healthy you are by going to the American Academy of Actuaries’ and Society of Actuaries’ Longevity Illustrator tool.

A few caveats: Postponing Social Security probably isn’t a good idea if poor health is likely to shorten your life expectancy (although it can still make sense if your spouse will be depending on your benefit after you die).

Delaying also may not be a smart move if doing so would cause you to deplete all or virtually all of your retirement savings, leaving you with no savings to fall back on for unanticipated expenses and emergencies. (If that’s the case, however, you may not have adequate savings to retire and thus should consider working longer to bulk up the size of your nest egg.)

I’d also caution against overconfidence when it comes to investing. I get lots of emails from people who tell me they’re better off taking Social Security early and investing it rather than waiting for a larger benefit because they’re confident they can earn a high rate of return. People can disagree about what constitutes a realistic rate of return for someone in retirement. But given today’s low yields and predictions of modest returns in the years ahead, I’d say that a real return of 3% to 4% a year—that is, the return in excess of inflation—is probably reasonable for most retirees. You can shoot for higher gains, but doing so inevitably means taking on more volatility, which raises the possibility that your nest egg could be so decimated by a severe market setback that it might never completely recover.

Clearly, deciding when to take Social Security is no simple decision, especially for married couples, who may be able to boost their benefits by coordinating when they claim. So at the very least it makes sense to familiarize yourself with the options available to you, which you can do by reading the Boston College Center For Retirement Research’s Social Security Claiming Guide. For help in sorting out those options, you may also want to consider checking out a service like Maximize My Social Security or Social Security Solutions, both of which rely on sophisticated software programs to make their recommendations.

Or you may want to consult a financial planner who can also factor the effect of income taxes into the analysis (which, to keep things relatively simple, I didn’t do in the examples above).

But the bottom line is this: If you can manage it, you’re generally better taking Social Security later rather than sooner, as a higher benefit that’s pegged to inflation acts as a form of longevity insurance that can help you maintain your standard of living throughout retirement, regardless of how the financial markets and your retirement investments perform.

How To Explore The World On Social Security Income Alone

My Comments: Let me know how this works for you…

Suzan Haskins and Dan Prescher – 09/06/2016

Sometimes it just pays to retire overseas … not only can you live much more affordably overall, but you can treat yourself to experiences you might not have access to or be able to afford at home …

One of the biggest advantages we’ve discovered in our 15 years of living overseas is the constant availability of travel and adventure … and a big benefit is how remarkably little it costs.

We’ve written before about the low cost of bus travel in Ecuador, where we live. For about $2.50 we can travel by bus from our home in Cotacachi in northern Ecuador to the capital city of Quito, two hours to the south. If we want to hire a private driver, we’ll typically pay $50 to $60 for that. Domestic airfares are low, too. You’ll rarely spend more than $50 to $70 to fly anywhere in the country.

So if, on a whim, we want to take a weekend junket to the city…or to the Amazon basin and one of Ecuador’s many rainforest lodges, or to a Pacific coast beach town … we can do that both easily and affordably.

Case in point … a few weekends ago, we took a Sunday trip — from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. — to visit a national park in Ecuador’s Carchi province that’s home to one of the most unique ecosystems on the planet.

This tour cost just $25 apiece. (The U.S. dollar is Ecuador’s official currency, in case you’re wondering.) This included our transportation and driver/guide. We spent another $10 for our park entry and our eco-guide.

Along the way, we stopped for a breakfast of grilled cheese toast, eggs, fruit, yogurt and granola, coffee, and fresh-squeezed juice — just $4. Lunch was a choice of fresh-fried trout or grilled chicken with salad, rice and potatoes, more delicious juice, coffee, and homemade ice cream for dessert. The grand total for that feast was just $6 apiece.

Of course, just living outside the U.S. can be a daily adventure for a couple of U.S. Midwesterners like us, and we suspect the same is true for most North Americans we know who have moved abroad. But the opportunity to spend the day or weekend visiting someplace amazingly exotic and seeing something that you’ve never seen before … often right on your doorstep and often for less than the price of a fancy dinner back home … sets the adventure bar pretty high for us.

This most recent adventure took us up into the high-elevation Andes Mountains to explore an ecosystem that only exists between 11°N and 8°S latitudes, mostly in the northwest corner of South America. It’s called the páramo, and it’s a kind of alpine tundra that exists between 9,000 to 15,000 feet above sea level … from down where the trees start to get weird and stunted up to where the permanent snow line starts and almost nothing grows.

In Ecuador’s El Angel Ecological Reserve, the local páramo is an amazing wetland thanks to a convergence of air currents that brings fog and rain almost daily. A two-hour walk through the park takes you through two of the three main zones of a páramo ecosystem—first a walk through a stunted, twisted, shaggy barked forest of polylepis trees, some of the slowest-growing trees in the world—trees that only grow at high elevations. Climbing up, the forest soon gives way to a zone of grasses and stunted frailejones, a plant that looks like a cross between a dwarf palm tree and a cactus.

We thankfully didn’t walk up into the third zone of the paramo up near the snow line…but we could see it high above us.

Aside from the fact that the páramo only exists in very few places on the planet, it is even more special because, here in Ecuador, it forms a kind of huge geological sponge. The plants and soils trap the constant upper-altitude rain and fog and release it slowly into streams and rivers that flow down into Ecuador’s Andean valleys, supplying much of the fresh water for entire regions of the country.

In fact, there are places in the El Angel Ecological Reserve that look like broad, grassy avenues—a kind of Alpine mirage. Beneath the pathways, underground waterways flow through fine sandy mud…you can jump on the ground and feel it quiver and shake as though you’re walking on a sponge.

The opportunities to visit places like this in Ecuador are legion thanks to the little country’s geography and latitude. The Andes Mountains run right down Ecuador’s spine, from north to south. From the beaches at sea level on the Pacific coast, the country rises eastward to some of the highest mountain peaks on the planet before descending again into jungles from which spring major headwaters of the Amazon River basin.

The diversity is incredible, which makes for some really diverse and amazing opportunities to visit places unique on the globe. And luckily for us, it’s more than affordable to explore Ecuador. It’s easy enough to find comfortable hostels — yes, with private bathrooms — for anywhere from $20 to $40 a night, breakfast included. And you can spend more for more luxurious digs with all meals and tours included.

This isn’t just true of Ecuador, of course. Expats living overseas all have a world of such adventures to choose from. In eastern Mexico, the ruins of the entire northern Maya empire are day trips apart…and they sit atop an amazing geographical region of underground rivers and cenotes to explore. In Belize, the second-largest reef system on the planet lies just a few hundred yards offshore. In Costa Rica, a significant portion of the entire country is national parkland with some of the most bio-diverse flora and fauna anywhere.

The list of amazing places that expats have access to is as vast and diverse as the places they settle. It’s part of what makes retiring overseas such a worthwhile experience … it can be easy and affordable to indulge your inner explorer.

Social Security Tips For Working Retirees

SSA-image-3My Comments: Again, more useful insights about the Social Security benefits system. Even if you consider yourself already retired, understanding the ins and outs of the Social Security program might be very helpful to you. Reach out to me if you are still confused.

Fidelity Viewpoints – 04/20/2016

Do you plan to work in retirement? If so, you need to be aware, if you’ve begun taking Social Security benefits, of how your Social Security income may be taxed—and the earned income thresholds that determine the level of your taxes and any reductions in benefits.

Thirty-seven percent of people in a recent AARP survey indicated that they plan to work either full time or part time during retirement. Why? In addition to the financial benefits, many older workers find that a job can add valuable structure to their day and provide the mental stimulation that comes from interacting with co-workers, clients, and other work associates.

Among those who plan to work in retirement out of financial necessity, a survey by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies found 43% expected to use the money to cover essential expenses, 37% to pay for health care, and 20% to save more for retirement.

Whatever your reason for considering working in retirement, it’s a good idea to know how doing so will affect your Social Security benefits and your tax bill. Here are the facts plus some strategies to consider.

Temporary benefit reductions for earned income

Note that “earned” income includes wages, net earnings from self-employment, bonuses, vacation pay, and commissions earned—because they are all based upon employment. Earned income does not include investment income, pension payments, government retirement income, military pension payments, or similar types of “unearned” income.

The earliest age at which you are eligible to claim Social Security benefits is 62. If you claim your benefits and continue to work, there is an earnings restriction until you reach your full retirement age (FRA) of 66. If you have earned income in excess of $15,720 in 2016, your benefits will be reduced by $1 for every $2 of earned income over the $15,720 limit.

If you reach your FRA during 2016, the limit for earned income rises to $41,880 and the benefits reduction is $1 for every $3 earned over the limit until the month you reach your FRA. After that, there are no earnings limits and no benefit reductions based upon earned income.

For example, if your monthly benefit was $2,000, here is how much your benefit would be reduced for various levels of earned income at certain ages:

Income tax implications

Social Security benefits are subject to federal income taxes above certain levels of “combined income.” Combined income consists of your adjusted gross income (AGI), nontaxable interest, and one-half of your Social Security benefits. (See: “Income Taxes And Your Social Security Benefits ,” for more information.)

For individual filers with combined incomes of $25,000 to $34,000, 50% of your Social Security benefit may subject to federal income taxes. If your combined income exceeds $34,000, then up to 85% of your Social Security benefits could be taxed.

For joint filers with combined incomes of $32,000 to $44,000, 50% of your Social Security benefit may subject to federal income taxes. If your combined income exceeds $44,000, then up to 85% of your Social Security benefits could be taxed.

Regardless of your income level, no more than 85% of your Social Security benefits will ever be subject to federal taxation.

Additionally, 13 states also tax your Social Security benefits. The rules and exemptions vary widely across this group so it is wise to research the rules for your state or consult with a tax professional if this affects you.

Social Security and Medicare taxes

In addition to federal and possibly state income taxes, you will pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on any wages earned in retirement. There is no age limit on these withholdings, nor any exemption for any sort of Social Security benefits status.

The good news is that these earnings can also count toward the calculation of your benefits: Social Security checks your earnings record each year and will increase your benefit, if appropriate, based on these additional earnings.

What if you are making much less in retirement than before? Could it hurt your benefits? The answer is no, because the benefit payment is still based on your 35 highest years of earnings. At worst, there would be no impact; at best, it could help if this replaces any of the lower 35 years.

The big decision: When to claim Social Security

When to claim Social Security benefits will be one of the most important decisions that you make regarding your retirement, along with how to take retirement income from your various retirement accounts and how you will fund your health care needs in retirement. The following chart shows the difference for someone turning 62 in 2016. Let’s assume his or her annual salary at retirement is $100,000. The first set of numbers on the chart shows the benefit amounts he or she would receive by claiming at various ages.

The bottom row of the chart expresses the differences as a percentage of the benefit amount received by claiming at your FRA for someone born in the years from 1943 to 1954.

A change in the rules in late 2015 closed the door on the popular claiming strategy for couples that allowed one spouse to file and suspend his or her benefit while the other spouse files a restricted application for a spousal benefit based on the first spouse’s earnings record. This option ended as of April 30, 2016.

You should also be aware of a special rule for the first year of retirement. This rule allows you to get a full Social Security check for any whole month you’re retired, regardless of your yearly earnings. This helps people who retire in midyear or later who have already earned more than the annual earnings limit.

Going back to work—meet James

In our hypothetical example, James, age 64, retired at 62 from a plumbing supply company in the Chicago area, and claimed Social Security benefits as soon as he was eligible, at 62. James misses not having some structure in his day. He loves home improvement and helping people, so he found a job at a big box retailer. His wife, Arlene, age 61, is still working part time. Both have FRAs of age 66.

Three Social Security options for James to consider

1. Social Security do-overs are allowed within 12 months of commencing benefit payments. In James’s case, he missed this window for a do-over. You are allowed one lifetime do-over, or withdrawal of benefits, and you must repay all benefits received. This includes, in addition to your own benefits, any benefits received by other family members based upon your earnings record, whether or not they are living with you; any monies withheld for Medicare payments; and any garnishments that may have been withheld from your benefit payments. When you resume benefits at a later date, they will be at the starting amount for your age and earnings record at that new time.

2. Suspending your benefit is allowed once your reach your FRA. James can do this when he turns 66 if he chooses. The advantage is that his benefit will be suspended at the level at the time of suspension, and it can now grow until he resumes taking it at any point up until age 70, when it reaches its maximum level. The advantage for James is the accrual of delayed retirement credits, which will result in a higher benefit level when he resumes his benefit. However, he will pay taxes on earned income. Under the new rules, once James suspends his benefit, no one, including his spouse, can receive a benefit from his earnings record.

3. Filing a restricted application. Since Arlene did not turn 62 prior to December 31, 2015, she would not be eligible to file a restricted application for a spousal benefit based upon James’s earnings record once she reaches her FRA, to allow her own benefit to continue accruing. She would have to choose between filing a spousal benefit or her own benefit when she files. This might be advantageous for the couple, and could provide a reason for James to continue drawing his benefit.

Benefits of working longer

Working into retirement can help in your retirement planning, especially if your savings are running a bit behind your goals. Continuing to work allows you to keep building retirement savings. If you meet the eligibility requirements, you can contribute to a 401(k) or other tax-deferred workplace savings plan, a health savings account (HSA), and an IRA, even if you are collecting Social Security. You can also make catch-up contributions, which enable you to set aside larger amounts of money for retirement. The combination of the added savings, tax-deferred growth potential, the ability to delay claiming Social Security benefits, and the ability to defer tapping into your savings can be powerful, even at the end of your working career.