<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blog.newsweek.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Timing Social Security </title><link>http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/tipsheet/archive/2007/10/27/timing-social-security.aspx</link><description>Nov. 5, 2007 issue Most older workers are used to being told that they should wait as long as possible to claim Social Security benefits—the longer they delay, the bigger their benefits will be. And the longer they expect to live, the more benefits they’ll</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Debug Build: 2.18)</generator><item><title>re: Timing Social Security </title><link>http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/tipsheet/archive/2007/10/27/timing-social-security.aspx#65133</link><pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:41:14 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">544c64cf-7058-4151-925a-a0fd041e73dd:65133</guid><dc:creator>siguccs</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;How about showing the math on this? &amp;nbsp;It's my understanding that, in the described scenario, the wife would get a reduced portion of her husband's benefit when her husband died, since she started taking her own benefits at 62.&lt;/p&gt;
</description><category>Blog: TipSheet</category></item></channel></rss>