I just don’t get people’s fascination with retroactive Social Security retirement benefits. I can understand that on the surface, the idea of getting a big retroactive check from the government might sound like a financial windfall. But when you think it through, or at least when I do, it just doesn’t make much sense.
Before I get to today’s questions, all of which concern claiming retroactive benefits, I must make a general point about the issue. The law says that you can claim up to six months’ worth of retroactive benefits, as long as it doesn’t involve the payment of any reduced Social Security benefits. Or to put that another way, no retroactive retirement benefits can be paid prior to your full retirement age (FRA). It’s a different story when it comes to disability benefits. But today, I’m sticking with the retirement program.
So anyway, readers are always asking me about the possibility of getting retroactive benefits. Here are some examples.
Q: I was born in 1958, so I reached my full retirement age of 66 and 8 months about a year ago. I am turning 68 in July and decided to file for my Social Security to start then. I did so online. I was amazed and thrilled when the application form offered the option to receive six months of retroactive benefits. I jumped at the chance. I wonder why the government doesn’t promote this offer more. And for that matter, why don’t you talk about it in your column?
A: I have written about this issue many times in my column. And now I will do it again. You said you “jumped at the chance” to get that retroactive check. I will assume that, instead of listing May 2026 as your benefit start month, you selected December 2025. So let me ask you this. If you wanted your benefits to start last December, why didn’t you file for them back then? Why did you let the government hang onto your money for six months and then pay it all back to you in a lump sum? With no interest, by the way.
Do you get my point? What was the possible advantage of waiting until now to file for benefits if you wanted them to start last December in the first place?
Also, I assume that you realize you will be getting a slightly smaller ongoing monthly benefit. Social Security recipients get a two-thirds of 1 percent increase in their retirement check for each month they delay filing for benefits after their full retirement age. So by starting your benefits six months ago, your ongoing benefit rate will be 4 percent less than it would have been had you waited until May.
Q: I am turning 70 in May. I was planning to start my Social Security then. But I just learned that I could wait until I am 70 1/2 to file and then claim a six-month retroactive check. I’m planning to do that. What do you think?
A: Once again, I don’t get it. If you want your benefits to start at age 70, then file for them to start at age 70. What possible advantage could there be in waiting until six months later and then claiming a retroactive check?
Q: I am 64 years old and filed for my Social Security a few months ago. My neighbor filed for his benefits yesterday and was approved for retroactive benefits. I never got that chance. Should I call Social Security and demand my retroactive check?
A: Don’t bother. As I explained at the beginning of this column, retroactive benefits can be paid only if you file after your full retirement age. I bet that your neighbor was over his FRA, but at 64, you are under yours, so you’re not due any retroactive benefits.
Q: I am a widow who is still working full time. I will turn 70 in July. I took my widow’s benefits at my full retirement age of 66 with the intention of switching to my own retirement benefits at 70 to get the bonus for delaying my benefits that long. But someone told me I will be able to claim six months of retroactive benefits. Is this true?
A: Well, yes, it is true. But once more, I have to wonder why you’d want to do that. To clarify, I’ll use an example.
Let’s say that you are currently getting $2,500 per month in widow’s benefits on your husband’s record. And let’s further say that you will be due $4,500 per month in augmented retirement benefits on your own account at 70. That augmentation is two-thirds of 1 percent for each month that you delayed filing after your full retirement age, coming out to an extra 30 percent in your case.
If you wait until you are 70 in July and make that switch, your $2,500 widow’s benefit will stop, and you will start getting $4,500 per month in retirement benefits.
As you were told, at age 70, you could conceivably say that you want six months of retroactive benefits. In other words, it would be as if you started your retirement benefits in January at age 69 and 6 months. As a result, instead of the 30 percent augmentation, you would get only 26 percent. Let’s say that comes out to $4,400 per month. You could claim six retroactive checks at $4,400 per month, less the $2,500 you would have already received in widow’s benefits. So your retroactive check would be $1,900 per month for six months, or $11,400. But your ongoing rate would be $4,400 per month instead of $4,500.
So once again, I have to ask this. If you wanted your retirement benefits to start in January at age 69 and 6 months, why didn’t you simply file for those benefits in January?
Those are the issues that have always puzzled me about people who get hung up on the idea of retroactive Social Security benefits. Having said all that, in the past, some readers have suggested that there might be some kind of tax advantage to claiming benefits at a later date and getting the retroactive check. I am definitely not a tax guy. So if you are thinking of doing this, you might want to consult a good local tax adviser to see if waiting to file and claiming a back paycheck makes sense from a tax perspective.
