Q: My wife and I don't know if we should "file and suspend" or "file and restrict" and if we should do it now or if we should wait. Please help! I can't believe how incredibly complicated Social Security is. It's worse than the tax code!

A: I made a little promise to myself that I would NOT write another column about all the confusion over the much ballyhooed and mostly misunderstood Social Security maximizing strategies called "file and suspend" and "file and restrict." At least not for the next couple of weeks. I would guess that more than half of my columns over the past several months have focused on this one topic alone, including my last three columns in a row. So if you are looking for information on that topic, just go to your newspaper's online archives or to my syndicator's website, www.creators.com, and check out my recent columns and you will find all the information you need to know about the topic.

In the case of this letter writer, I answered his questions via email. But I wanted to start this column by addressing his point about Social Security being "incredibly complicated."

For 70 years, Social Security wasn't complicated at all. You applied for benefits at 62 or maybe waited until 65. A very few people waited until 70. Nobody tried to "maximize" their Social Security. Again, they simply filed for benefits at whatever age they decided they wanted and the checks just started rolling in. "Easy peasy," as they say!

But then these "file and suspend" and "file and restrict" loopholes inadvertently opened up as the result of some mostly unrelated Social Security amendments. (See my past columns if you are interested in the backstory.) And then financial planners and other Social Security "experts" got into the act and things really got bizarre. People started twisting the rules in a variety of convoluted ways to try to squeeze all sorts of unintended benefits out of the system.

Thankfully, Congress finally stepped in and eliminated these loopholes, albeit in a gradual way. In a few months, we will finally be done with the "file and suspend" strategy, and in about four years, we will be rid of "file and restrict" claims. Then we will get back to the good old-fashioned and relatively simple Social Security program.

But that's a good news/bad news scenario. These loophole laws were messy, but they did result in more money for seniors in the long run. Once those loopholes close, the system will be simple again, but less generous.

Q: Can you please advise me on some Medicare issues that I have. I tried calling Social Security's hotline, but they didn't do much. Can you help me?

A: I've explained many times before that as a retired Social Security Administration employee, I know all about Social Security benefits, but very little about the Medicare program. SSA's role in the Medicare program is minimal: They simply help people sign up for Medicare coverage. But an entirely different government agency, called the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, actually runs the Medicare program. You can call them at 800-MEDICARE. Or go to their website: www.medicare.gov.

But I usually steer people needing Medicare help to another source. There are volunteer Medicare counselors in most states called SHIP. That stands for State Health Insurance Program. In a few states, they are called HICAP, and that stands for Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program. To find the SHIP or HICAP counselor nearest you, go to www.medicare.gov and pull down the menu for your state under "Find someone to talk to" and then click on SHIP or HICAP.

Q: My 97-year-old mother just died. Is my 98-year-old father due any of her Social Security?

A: Probably not. If she was getting her own Social Security retirement benefit, and if that benefit was higher than what your father was getting, then your father would get the difference in monthly widower's benefits added to his retirement check. But if your mother was getting less than your father was, or if she was getting only spousal benefits on his record, then he isn't due anything extra now that your mother has died.

As you maybe know, Social Security does pay a little $255 one-time death benefit. Your father would be due that benefit only if your mother was getting her own Social Security retirement check. If she was getting just a spousal benefit on your dad's account, then the one-time death benefit isn't payable.

Q: What is up with the crummy little $255 Social Security death benefit? It's worthless! And what's worse: My widowed mother just died, and I couldn't even get the government to pay it to me!

A: I totally agree that it's worthless. It's a holdover from the very earliest days of the Social Security program. And it's been locked in at the same $255 level for maybe 40 or 50 years now. A half-century ago, $255 really helped pay for the funeral. Today, it won't even buy the flowers.

Bills are occasionally introduced in Congress to eliminate the almost worthless benefit. But then senior citizen lobby groups rally the troops and fight to keep it on the books. So it never goes away, but it never goes up either.

For example, back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration was looking for ways to cut government spending. And the Social Security death benefit was on the chopping block. Congress (with the encouragement of the senior citizen lobby) fought back. They compromised, and decided to limit the payment only to a spouse or a minor child. Because your mom was a widow (i.e., she had no spouse), and assuming you are not a minor child, that's why you didn't get the death benefit.

If I were the king of the Social Security world, I would increase the rate to $2,500. And if Congress says the money isn't there to do that, then I would simply eliminate it.

If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has the answer. Contact him at thomas.margenau@comcast.net. To find out more about Tom Margenau and to read past columns and see features from other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: