Annoe wrote: " jamies, it's not 37% of half...it is 37% instead of 50% so if your DH gets $1000 at full retirement age you'd get $500, but at 62 you'd get $370...." YES. At 66 the spouse can collected 50% of the benefit. Maybe this helps, from the SSA: " A spouse receives one-half of the retired worker's full benefit unless the spouse begins collecting benefits before full retirement age. If the spouse begins collecting benefits before full retirement age, the amount of the spouse's benefit is reduced by a percentage based on the number of months before he/she reaches full retirement age. For example, based on the full retirement age of 66, if a spouse begins collecting benefits: At age 65, the benefit amount would be about 46 percent of the retired worker's full benefit; At age 64, it would be about 42 percent; At age 63, 37.5 percent; and At age 62, 35 percent. " Here is a link that might be useful: Social Security Spouse benefits percentages This post was edited by maddielee on Mon, Apr 15, 13 at 15:24

Just moving it back up a bit. Some who might find it useful may not have seen it earlier. That amount that a single person can earn without being liable to pay one cent of income tax claimed above is incorrect. The correct figure was $46,345.00. in 2006 ... if solely dividends on Canadian stocks, with no other income, no income tax is payable by a single taxpayer. Have yourselves a lovely late?-winter weekend, everyone. ole joyful

Good for you, Gibby, to allow yourself a little indulgence. You have attended to your security and seem to have a generous nature. What else is the money good for? And I agree with your lack of enthusiam for the financial services industry. I have worked with several different advisors over 25 years, staying with three to the bitter end (a relocation and two, count em, two corporate meltdowns and restructuring ended things.) IOW, it is not that I'm fickle; I'll stick. All were highly recommended, experienced and solid. And did seem genuinely sorry that somehow I kept managing to LOSE money as the stock market spiraled up. "This is so unusual..blah, blah, blah." Meanwhile over in the tax deferred accounts, that I managed over those same decades, we did very well in both good and bad markets. But hope springs eternal. In 2003 I was in a a similar situation to yours, and vetted a number of recommended advisors. The one affiliated with insurance said I neeeded more insurance (duh. I don't). The broker said I was overinsured and should look into these certain mutual funds (duh. all front loaded). And the fee-for-service guys couldn't really effectively address investing one piece of the pie without considering the whole pie, but would be MORE than happy to review everything for X thousand dollars and manage the works for X percent a year. Ugh. Frustrating waste of my time. I researched, made a clear plan and went with Vanguard. It has been fine. Fine enough that perhaps I'll take your lead and get neglected things done around this place!!

jane ny, So far, my annual tax bill has been low. Partly because I don't have a large number of investmetns, and partly because I seldom sell any so have not had to answer to the Canada Revenue Agency on the increase in value ... ... and won't, until I either sell them - or die - neither of which I intend to do, this week or next. However, there's another possibility, detailed below, which triggers a capital gain - but not at a time of my choice. With regard to distributions from my equity-based mutual funds (which most of mine are) they are re-invested, and I pay tax on those amounts annually - but at varying rates. I goofed - I should have kept track of the annual amounts over the years, which is over 20 years for some of them, for I need those amounts to add to the amounts originally invested in order to calculate my adjusted cost base, which I need when I sell them (or die, at which time is is deemed that I sold all of that kind of stuff the day before, so become tax-liable on the whole of it in that year ... which my executor has to figure out). I deduct that amount from the value at the time, in order to calculate the amount of my capital gain - taxable, but at a reduced rate. And if I give the certificates to a charity, there is no tax on the capital gain on that portion of my asset. As for foreign-based stocks, on some of them I am taxed in the originating country, and usually there is a tax treaty with Canada and I get a credit here with regard to that amount; if they are U.S.-based companies, I must declare full amount here and can claim credit with regard to that amount withheld and paid to the foreign country - I used to find that for $3.00 paid to I.R.S., I'd get about a $2.00 credit from the Canada Revenue Agency. When I own Canadian stocks that pay annual dividends, I pay a much reduced rate on those dividends, at that time. For some of them, they have a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (which I have not used, but should have). In that case, I need to keep track of annual payments which were used to buy more shares, to calculate my adjusted cost base when I sell them. When I sell a stock, I need to deduct the amount that I paid (adjusted cost base), in order to calculate the capital gain, then I pay tax at regular rate on half of that amount. I've been wondering whether I should sell some, then buy them back (or of a similar company) in order to crystallize the capital gains now, and be taxed now, but at a lower rate, as I'll be taxed at top rate on a substantial portion of that year's income, on death. And the residue of my tax-deferred retirement accounts (I had to begin to liquidate them, beginning at age 70, at a specified minimum amount annually, which precentage increases annually till age 90) will all be added into income in the year of death. However - there'd be brokerage fees to sell, then when I re-buy. And the amount paid in tax would no longer be available to invest. However ... in this year, one investment that I'd wondered about selling, as I'd owned it for a number of years, was involved in a reorganization, such that it would be deemed a sale, so I'll be taxable on that capital gain this year. Another company was sold, so my shares are (forcibly) luiquidated. And a third company, whose shares I bought earlier this year, was involved in two reorganizationas (one related to the first one that I mentioned) so there'll be capital gain involved with that one, as well. All in one year. Drat!!! So - I guess that I'd better start finding money, looking toward writing a cheque of substantial size to the Canada Revenue Agency at the end of next April. Wish me luck! One advantage, though, of buying stocks whose value rises and not selling them for a sustantial period, is that I don't become tax-liable on the increase until I sell (or get sold involuntarily) (or die) so I achieve tax deferral, which achieves one of the major purposes of a tax-deferred investment account, but without the restrictions. ole joyful Hope this helps.